Literature DB >> 23333127

Revision of total shoulder arthroplasty.

L Favard1.   

Abstract

In France, the number of revisions for total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) has increased by 29% between 2006 and 2010. Published studies have reported a revision rate of approximately 11% for hemi-arthroplasty and total anatomical implants, and 10% for reversed implants. The decision to revise or not revise a TSA requires that a rigorous, clinical, laboratory and imaging initial assessment be done in order to answer five questions. Is it infected? Is it unstable? Is it worn? Is it loosened? How is the rotator cuff? This assessment and an evaluation of the bone stock are required to decide whether or not to revise. If the problem is infection, the best solution is not always complete removal of the implant, which results in very poor shoulder function. In such a situation, a multidisciplinary consultation is essential in the decision-making. If the problem is instability, the cause must be identified and rectified. Instability is often caused by insufficient restoration of the humerus length. If the problem is loosening, the type of revision must take into account the patient's age, the rotator cuff status and the available bone stock. The possibilities to reimplant an anatomical glenoid are scarce, and only for cases with minor bone loss and an intact cuff. If a bone graft without reimplantation of a glenoid component is preferred, it should be a tricortical graft to resist wear and medialisation. In the other cases, a reversed shoulder implant with an autograft is preferable. Whether or not the humeral stem is loose, it must often be removed. However, its removal is very difficult, risky and it often causes complications, with humerus fracture being the most common. The possibility of reconstruction depends on the quality of the remaining bone stock. In all these risky situations, the patient should be duly informed and should take part in the decision-making process.
Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23333127     DOI: 10.1016/j.otsr.2012.11.010

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Orthop Traumatol Surg Res        ISSN: 1877-0568            Impact factor:   2.256


  10 in total

1.  Arthroscopic Removal of a Loose Polyethylene Glenoid Component With Bone Grafting and Patch Augmentation for Glenoid Osseous Defect.

Authors:  Jeffrey T Abildgaard; Jared C Bentley; Richard J Hawkins; John M Tokish
Journal:  Arthrosc Tech       Date:  2017-05-01

2.  [Shoulder arthroplasty].

Authors:  Dennis Wassenaar; André Busch; Alexander Wegner; Marcus Jäger
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2021-02-04       Impact factor: 1.087

Review 3.  [Shoulder endoprosthesis in the elderly : Hemiarthroplasty or total shoulder arthroplasty? Anatomic or reverse?]

Authors:  J Kircher
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2017-01       Impact factor: 1.087

Review 4.  Magnetic resonance imaging of shoulder arthroplasty: review article.

Authors:  O Kenechi Nwawka; Gabrielle P Konin; Darryl B Sneag; Lawrence V Gulotta; Hollis G Potter
Journal:  HSS J       Date:  2014-07-19

5.  [Strategies in revision shoulder arthroplasty].

Authors:  P Habermeyer; P Magosch
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2013-07       Impact factor: 1.087

6.  What Is the Diagnostic Accuracy of Alpha-Defensin and Leukocyte Esterase Test in Periprosthetic Shoulder Infection?

Authors:  Niklas Unter Ecker; Alina Koniker; Thorsten Gehrke; Jochen Salber; Akos Zahar; Moritz Hentschke; Mustafa Citak
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2019-07       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 7.  The most influential studies concerning revision shoulder arthroplasty research.

Authors:  Alina Syros; Olivia F Perez; Dylan Luxenburg; Jacob L Cohen; Ronald Swonger; Samuel Huntley
Journal:  J Orthop       Date:  2022-10-04

8.  What Factors are Predictive of Patient-reported Outcomes? A Prospective Study of 337 Shoulder Arthroplasties.

Authors:  Frederick A Matsen; Stacy M Russ; Phuong T Vu; Jason E Hsu; Robert M Lucas; Bryan A Comstock
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2016-07-25       Impact factor: 4.176

9.  Hip-inspired implant for revision of failed reverse shoulder arthroplasty with severe glenoid bone loss. Improved clinical outcome in 11 patients at 3-year follow-up.

Authors:  Ofir Uri; Ian Bayley; Simon Lambert
Journal:  Acta Orthop       Date:  2014-04       Impact factor: 3.717

10.  Revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty in patients 65 years old and younger: outcome comparison with older patients.

Authors:  Cameron R Guy; Bradley S Schoch; Robert Frantz; Thomas W Wright; Aimee M Struk; Kevin W Farmer; Joseph J King
Journal:  JSES Int       Date:  2021-12-23
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.